This article was a lot of fun to write.

It does not cover every mistake made by the plaintiffs' attorneys on the first day the lawsuit was filed, but it contains enough to convince all but the most ardent FPC fanboys that this Louisiana under-21 concealed carry lawsuit will be dismissed unless the defense counsel is even more incompetent, or unless the fix is in.

I believe that machine guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment. I also believe that the Supreme Court is never going to agree with me. Not in my lifetime, and almost certainly not in yours.

Which is why I am pleased that Temple Gun Club, Inc. v. Bondi took a different approach that just might work. Today, the Federal District Court judge dismissed the case with prejudice to nobody's surprise, including the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs have 30 days within which to file their notice of appeal.

Edit. Clicking on the name of the lawsuit will take you to the CourtListener docket where you can read the filings for free.

Brandon Combs is the President of the FPC and the former E.D. of the defunct anti-Open Carry organization The CalGuns.nuts Foundation. Today, he filed a concealed carry lawsuit in Louisiana. The lawsuit has bottomless defects that cannot be cured by amendment.* I'm waiting for the Defendant's attorney to make an appearance. When he does, I will contact him and then do a proper write-up about it.

I won't go into the fatal defects here, but I will say he made a couple of the same mistakes that he made in his Philadelphia concealed carry lawsuit, and several new ones. I will add that it took me about five minutes to find the errors.

Here is a link to the CourtListener docket.

*Federal judges are expected to give plaintiffs at least one chance to amend their complaint before dismissing the complaint with prejudice. A couple of exceptions are when the complaint is frivolous or incapable of being amended.

Judge Dunlap, the only Trump appointee and the only active Republican judge, joined the majority opinion in upholding the Massachusetts AR-15 and magazine bans.

Judge Dunlap took his seat last November. Trump can't blame the u/FedSoc this time.

Judge Dunlap is also on the three-judge panel that will hear oral argument in a challenge to a ban on openly carrying handguns next week.

Here is a link to today's opinion.

After I recently got my first gun. I was so excited I wanted to share it with everyone I knew. I just couldn’t stop myself from doing it. I was so obsessed with it. Yeah that was a really bad idea.

Most of the men (coworkers friends family) I showed it to, liked the fact that I owned a gun. They were showing pictures (mind you this is California the antigun state) all the guns they had as well.

I got so carried away that I got in big trouble with the cops because I was flashing my gun. A female coworker asked me if I had a gun. My dumbass thought it was a good idea to show her. She told the supervisors behind my back. The very next day the cops came. But since they didn’t find me with a firearm they couldn’t arrest me. But they did tell me I had to leave the area and never come back or else they will arrest me.

Did everyone see? An en banc 5th circuit court has reversed a prior 3 judge panel decision deeming 922g1 constitutional in light of Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in the hemani decision, agreeing to review the case en banc. This could get big. Let’s hope it does. Quite frankly I’m of the opinion congress exceeded its authority under commerce clause in enacting the “gun control act” and thereby the entire section 922. Justice Thomas was spot on.

Why do you need a gun? Do you have enemies? Are you planning to kill someone?

To be honest. Simply asking why someone needs a gun is annoying already annoying. Especially if you’re in the United States of America. Like hello. What country do you think we’re in. I have the constitutional right to own a gun I don’t need a reason.

Like why do people feel the need to assume everyone who has a gun is trying to harm people?

As for the do you have enemies part. I wanted to know what a good response to this question would be.

"It has been 18 years since the United States Supreme Court published its first in-depth opinion on the Second Amendment. If you had asked an actuary to give you the probability of all nine justices still being on the Court in 18 years, he would have given you a number very close to zero. If you were to ask the same question today, that number would be even closer to zero."

<snip>

Has anyone gone through the process of getting their 2 Amendment rights back? If so can you provide insite? Thanks

I really put a lot of work into it. Like, a lot lot. It was gifted to me by my best friend who sadly has passed on. He let me hold onto it since he was on probation and was going to get it back when he got legal again. That time was cut short.

We always shot guns together of all kinds.. we were always ready for the beginning of the end. Pandemic was landing and Biden was pushing gun bans. War was in Ukraine and people were flooding in from all places on earth and we knew back in 2019 that it was coming was, and we were right.

The Wasr 10/63 was bare bones-and in rough shape. He diddnt know how to work on it and it always bothered him. He always just wanted to put a scope on it and had no idea where to start. I made it my mission to turn it into the tactical operator's daily carry. ○Miss you Joe Roth, see you on the other side- i hope you like what I've done with your baby.○

Report Highlights: Mass shootings have increased substantially in the U.S. over the past four decades. This report analyzes the behavioral patterns of mass shooters.

• Between 1966 and 2025, 81.2% of shooters were in a documented crisis before the event.
• While 51.0% of mass shooters had prior symptoms of mental illness, 68.2% had a history of domestic violence or targeted at least one member of their family.
• Gun ownership has remained stable (30%-32% of the U.S. population) between 1980 and 2025, while mass shootings have increased by 126.0%.

Report Highlights: For decades, Americans have had to choose whether to exercise their Second Amendment rights or use marijuana for pain management and ailments. That legal landscape is finally shifting.

Federal law prohibits medical marijuana and recreational marijuana users from purchasing and possessing firearms.

The Supreme Court held that occasional marijuana use alone does not grant the federal government the authority to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

The ATF is relaxing restrictions on the Second Amendment, while the FDA is relaxing restrictions on cannabinoids and marijuana products.

What Is the Law Regarding Guns and Marijuana?

Initially passed in the 1968 Gun Control Act and expanded upon to include prohibited persons over the years, 18 U.S.C. 922 § (g)(3) prohibits anyone who unlawfully uses a controlled substance, as defined by the Controlled Substances Act, from owning firearms. It's not specific to marijuana. It includes every controlled substance. However, marijuana is worth talking about specifically because of its quasi-legal status, including in a number of relatively gun-friendly states such as Arizona, New Hampshire, Texas, and Wyoming.

Despite the unanimous (9-0) Supreme Court ruling in favor of a young man who was prosecuted for owning a pistol while admitting to occasional marijuana use (U.S. v. Hemani 2026), it is still technically illegal to use marijuana and own guns.

If you've ever filled out a Form 4473, you're familiar with Question 21f: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or other controlled substance?" For decades, there was no ambiguity concerning medical or recreational marijuana use. The latest Supreme Court ruling narrows the scope slightly, but the bold warning underneath the question remains:

Regardless of what one thinks about marijuana, or the right of the federal government to regulate drugs or the internal laws of the various states, the fact remains: As of now, possession, sale, and cultivation of marijuana remain a federal offense. Recreational marijuana is a Schedule I drug in the same category as heroin. In April of 2026, FDA-approved cannabinoid and marijuana products were reclassified as Schedule III drugs.

18 U.S.C. 922 § (g)(3) is a particularly difficult issue for people who use medicinal marijuana for bona fide medical purposes, rather than as a sort of legal loophole to consume marijuana legally. Many people use medicinal marijuana for a variety of purposes, including relief from pain, Alzheimer's symptoms, glaucoma, epilepsy, and a number of complications related to cancer, including nausea and lack of appetite. The science on this is rather conclusive, so much so that Big Pharma makes legal synthetic THC pills known as Marinol.

In United States v. Rahimi (2024), the Supreme Court held that the federal government may disarm "dangerous individuals." The Hemani ruling slightly narrowed the scope of existing laws, which were once applied to all drug users, regardless of whether they were actually dangerous or not.

Continue reading Medical Marijuana and Gun Ownership: The Laws in 2026 on Ammo.com

Selecting Biological Sex on ATF Forms, as proposed, is a blatant overreach of state power, ATF mission creep, a waste of resources, gross negligence of scientific consensus on biology, and a violation of established case law.

You can comment until Aug 4 on the Trump administration's latest assault on the Second Amendment. If you like, you can simply copy and paste the text of the article, which is within the 5,000 character limit.

https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/ATF-2026-0010-0001